[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible GPL violation?
Re: Possible GPL violation?
Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:03:48 +0200
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 06:24:58AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> <<Previous attention by the FSF police notwithstanding, XYZZY Inc. is not
> obliged to give you the source if it didn't already give you binaries. I.e.
> the GPL does not *require* you to distribute to anyone. Just that when you
> do, it specifies how and how much.
> This is incorrect. If you opt for the written offer to supply the sources,
> as this company apparently has, then the following applies from the GPL:
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily used for software interchange; or,
> Note the "any third party" here.
Thanks for whacking me with the clue-by-four. Next time, I'll RTFL before
I make claims, *in spite* of thinking I know it by heart. I could have
sworn that last time I read 3b it was "to supply" instead of "to give any
third party". Amazing how fuzzy my memory is...
> Please read the GPL before making claims about it. The reason incidentally
Hey, everyone else makes claims without checking the facts! :) Yes, a
real problem of misinformation: it feeds on itself, as I just demonstrated.
> for the "any third party" here is to make it reasonably easy to do further
> distributions. This means you can send the objects to someone along with
> a copy of the original written offer rather than forcing you to excercise
> the written offer before redistributing.
> The GPL is quite clear about this:
> c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
> to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
> allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
BTW what exactly is "noncommercial distribution" here?
> received the program in object code or executable form with such
> an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
> Now if you take alternative a)
> a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
> 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
> Then indeed you have no obligation to third parties.
As punishment, I'll dig up a couple links.
GPL and NDAs: I was thinking of this thread while lying about the GPL
What IS the Amiga SDK: It seems this has been argued before
How not to follow the GNU GPL: Much closer to this thread
Zaphod Beeblebrox. I'd like my $10 now, please.
address@hidden is probably better to bookmark than any
employer-specific email address I may have appearing in the headers.
Vanity page: http://www.tsct.co.za/~berndj/